What is your opinion on netting?

[bluestreak]

This is in the news because of the little girl that got hit in Yankee Stadium. The Nats have pretty generous use of netting and every time I buy a ticket they tell me they reserve the right to add more. But when I was in Camden Yards in seats on the first row behind the dugout I was genuinely nervous with no net at all.  This is contentious when I have talked to others and was wondering what others thought.

[spidernat]

I'm on the fence. I personally don't like it but I can see how dangerous it can be for kids, older people and those with slow reflexes (I don't care about those who aren't paying attention).

[DPMOmaha]

I'd have no problem if it went from foul pole to foul pole. The net's never really been an impediment for me for watching once the game gets going.

[nfotiu]

Do any stadiums do something like netting to a point, and then label some sections as high/risk, no kids allowed, and let people choose for themselves?

[DPMOmaha]

Not that I know of, at least not in the bigs. Maybe in other parts of the world or at lower levels.

[dcpatti]

Do any stadiums do something like netting to a point, and then label some sections as high/risk, no kids allowed, and let people choose for themselves?

In Japan the infield field level seats that aren't behind a net are sold as "Excitement Seats" and they give you a helmet when you sit there.


I got grazed by a foul ball over the weekend. Got it in the hip. Hurt like a nag and it's now a massive bruise the size of a bread plate.  I can't sleep on that side now. I was paying attention and just could not react fast enough, and it wasn't even a line drive; it was a pop-fly. I can't imagine getting hit with a line drive in a bony part like a cheekbone or hand. It will do damage. And  no matter how well you pay attention, it's still really hard to react fast enough. I'm all in favor of more netting.

[OldChelsea]

It may well come to that - the NHL mandated netting about a decade and a half ago following the Brittanie Cecil tragedy in Columbus.

[tomterp]

In Japan the infield field level seats that aren't behind a net are sold as "Excitement Seats" and they give you a helmet when you sit there.


I got grazed by a foul ball over the weekend. Got it in the hip. Hurt like a nag and it's now a massive bruise the size of a bread plate.  I can't sleep on that side now. I was paying attention and just could not react fast enough, and it wasn't even a line drive; it was a pop-fly. I can't imagine getting hit with a line drive in a bony part like a cheekbone or hand. It will do damage. And  no matter how well you pay attention, it's still really hard to react fast enough. I'm all in favor of more netting.

And, if the ball is deflected by someone else, it's quite impossible to react.  A line shot into the crowd isn't going to be caught cleanly by anyone without a glove, it's going to be deflected so really it's a fantasy to think people can fend balls off through diligent attention to play.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

And, if the ball is deflected by someone else, it's quite impossible to react.  A line shot into the crowd isn't going to be caught cleanly by anyone without a glove, it's going to be deflected so really it's a fantasy to think people can fend balls off through diligent attention to play.

the other thing is, in a crowd, it is difficult to bail out. You have to move up to get past the armrest, and if you simply try to duck you are limited going forward and still are exposed to sinking liners.  The most crowded areas are in prime foul ball territory.  New stadia were built with much less foul ball territory than the old, circular multi-purpose parks like the Oakland Coliseum and RFK; in a sense, parks built in the last 25 years are designed to have fouls go into the seats.

[GburgNatsFan]

Necessary evil. Few people would be able to react quickly enough to protect themselves unless they play baseball regularly.

[3bside]

I think this year the league mandated netting to the closest side of the dugouts to home and gave teams the option to extend further.  The Nats chose to extend down to the end of the dugouts on an angle.  Still, I was at a game a couple of weeks ago where a kid who looked about 12 got hit pretty hard in Section 115 half way up.  He was crying but looked okay.  The balance is to give the players the opportunity to flip balls into the stands, which would be eliminated if the netting were extended further or higher.

[blue911]

The Nationals extended the netting prior to the 2016 season. Ruined going to the game for everybody,forever.

[Ali the Baseball Cat]

I saw someone get hit by a home run at RFK...I think she lost it in the sun or just got confused, as she didn't even appear to be playing with a phone.   

[LoveAngelos]

The Nationals extended the netting prior to the 2016 season. Ruined going to the game for everybody,forever.

So would a death.
Netting never kept people from paying $400 a seat to sit behind home plate. With modern fields moving the stands ever closer to the fields it is a necessity

[spidernat]

blue was being sarcastic

[tomterp]

The Nationals extended the netting prior to the 2016 season. Ruined going to the game for everybody,forever.

Well, there are still Loft sessions.   But otherwise, sure.

[Elvir Ovcina]

I'm torn about this one.   I really don't like watching the game through a screen, but I get around this by sitting in the upper deck.  I wouldn't take a kid under about 10 to sit anywhere shy of typical outfielder depth in the lower bowl, so maybe that's an argument in favor of netting.  I doubt it's practical to age-restrict those sections.   

I also agree with the posters who point out that the narrowing of foul territory in newer parks is a real problem here.  It may make sense for the rule to be generic, something like "Any field-level section for which the closest seat is within X feet of home plate must be protected by netting."  That way you wouldn't end up putting netting in front of sections in Oakland that are only marginally closer to home plate there than they are to San Francisco.

[Natsinpwc]

Recently watched game in Milwaukee from behind the netting. After the start didn't even notice it.

[bluestreak]

Recently watched game in Milwaukee from behind the netting. After the start didn't even notice it.

I have sat behind home plate twice this year. One in row B, One in row F. Netting was much more distracting in row B. I barely noticed in row F after the first inning.

[Ali the Baseball Cat]

I find the silly little glass panels to be much more of a distraction from the higher front rows.

[bluestreak]

I find the silly little glass panels to be much more of a distraction from the higher front rows.

yes! I am not even sure of their purpose. I mean I know what they are supposed to do, but how often are balls careening off that glass?  I have passed up on otherwise better seats because of those panels.

[tomterp]

yes! I am not even sure of their purpose. I mean I know what they are supposed to do, but how often are balls careening off that glass?  I have passed up on otherwise better seats because of those panels.

To block spilled beverages or other items that might otherwise be dropped to the lower sections.

[varoadking]

Recently watched game in Milwaukee from behind the netting. After the start didn't even notice it.

Same in Cincy...

[blue911]

If you sit behind one of the dugouts, you are closer to the batter than the shortstop. A batted ball with an exit velocity of 100MPH will reach your seat in about .75 of a second. If you blink you may miss the first .4 of a second and since the eye can't see the ball for the last 15 feet (focal depth issue) you are left with some where between .5 second and .15 second to react. Carrying a glove and paying attention didn't help Cristian Guzman, can't see it being of any practical use for the average fan.

[Baseball is Life]

I think this year the league mandated netting to the closest side of the dugouts to home and gave teams the option to extend further.  The Nats chose to extend down to the end of the dugouts on an angle.  Still, I was at a game a couple of weeks ago where a kid who looked about 12 got hit pretty hard in Section 115 half way up.  He was crying but looked okay.  The balance is to give the players the opportunity to flip balls into the stands, which would be eliminated if the netting were extended further or higher.

Was that incident in 113 by any chance? Something like that happened about five seats from me.

I'm all for the netting after seeing some close calls this year. The screens they have nowadays are not a distraction. My seats are in 113 are four rows back from the field and I would love to have the screens right in front of me. I worry when I give my tickets to certain people who I know may not pay attention and could get hurt. I always warn people but who knows if they listen.